I'm surprised no one else has brought this up - It appears AMR has launched an all out assault on LAX. I know a lot of these routes are probably driven to support the new Shanghai service, but still an impressive offering of new flights. Looking at these routes, I see them going into routes currently flown by F9, CO, UA, WN, US and DL.

Maybe it's because I am biased, but I still am surprised they don't do, say, 1x daily MCI-LAX. They have a decent FF base in MCI. It wouldn't be to directly meet the PVG flight, but still...I can't imagine the OKC flight, for example, is to directly feed people going OKC-LAX-PVG.

I was brought up a while ago when AA announced they were opening up a hub at LAX.

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter): I know a lot of these routes are probably driven to support the new Shanghai service

It will help the route but not exactly. AA has decided to open a hub there. Not just a focus city. So as long as flights start making money expect some more routes and frequencies. Of course there is not a ton or room for AA at LAX so if they do continue to expand it should be interesting.

"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):I'm surprised no one else has brought this up - It appears AMR has launched an all out assault on LAX. I know a lot of these routes are probably driven to support the new Shanghai service, but still an impressive offering of new flights. Looking at these routes, I see them going into routes currently flown by F9, CO, UA, WN, US and DL.

AA's LAX expansion has been discussed indepth since they announced several months ago. Old news by now.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Airlines do announce new routes months in advance because it takes that length of time to get advance bookings and market them etc. AA announced all this new service back in October, over five months ago now. Here's the thread from the time:

Quoting seatback (Reply 10):I would say most of the new routes are heavily served, especially DEN, SLC, PHX, TUS, IAH, and SMF. Clearly AA is looking for people to connect, not necessarily O&D.

True to an extent.

AA is most definitely looking for relatively-higher-yielding connections moving from these markets to other destinations served over LAX by AA or its partners (and there are plenty of those flights to choose from), but I would think AA is also targeting - to some extent - the massive local base of AA frequent flyers and corporate contract flyers in the Los Angeles area. That is a powerful group to leverage, if possible.

Now, it of course remains to be seen if that is possible. Some of these markets I suspect will work, others not.

Denver is mainly just an upgrade of AA's longstanding service, and I expect it to survive - if perhaps go back down to 3x daily (but on 2-class CRJs).

Phoenix I also expect to survive simply because it is such a massive market that presently had no westbound oneworld connectivity.

Some markets like Sacramento and Tucson I would characterize as marginal - not hopeless, but not great, either. Tucson may work simply built on the back of AA's large corporate presence there and strength in the local business market.

Boise I think is a stretch mainly because of its stage length, even if the market has little competition, and Salt Lake City I think is a stretch precisely because of the competition from other bigger, stronger, more established airlines in the market (especially Delta).

Houston I could see going either way. I think AA is sufficiently strong at both ends to make flights work if timed well and properly supported, but I'm not sure if the CRJ is the right airplane. I could perhaps see that going from 3x CRJ to 2x MD80 (probably a ~9am and ~6pm IAH departure and ~1pm and ~7pm LAX departure) in the future.

AA, like DL and UA have no choice. Some LAX routes on these carriers will be miserable. Others will do just fine.
Don't look at LAX so much as "just" an AA "hub" expansion. Look at it more as an "Alliance expansion". LAX is key for the three major alliances. They each need to make a mark for their huge FF bases. DL is doing it, AA is doing it and UA is doing it, all for the sake of providing their alliances (OW, ST, Star) with a meaningful presence in LAX.

5-8 years from now, this will all make sense, trust me. Including the whole AS debate, for some...

[Edited 2011-04-05 14:20:01]

Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.

I'm surprised that AA did not announce LAX-SAT with the CR7, along with these new routes. They flew this for some years with M80s, and I think 3x daily with the 2-class CR7 would be more appropriate. In Texas, AA now serves DFW, AUS, IAH and ELP from Los Angeles, so San Antonio seems a bit of a gap. Perhaps it will be added in the future, provided these routes are not a complete disaster.

An all out assault? I don't think chief competitors like UA or WN are all too worried that AA has suddenly decided to throw a few high cost RJs on a smattering of highly competitive short haul routes.

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter): I know a lot of these routes are probably driven to support the new Shanghai service, but still an impressive offering of new flights.

I highly doubt AA is counting on markets like Tucson and El Paso to fill the planes to PVG. If anything this is to facilitate improved network connectivity (think PHX-LAX-OGG, IAH-LAX-SBA, SLC-LAX-SJD, etc.), improve AA's attractiveness to the local market (which does demand flights to these short haul destinations), and otherwise boost their presence and performance at what is now considered to be a key hub.

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):Looking at these routes, I see them going into routes currently flown by F9, CO, UA, WN, US and DL.

On every single one of these routes they will face at least two well-established competitors, except for LAX-BOI, where they will only have to contend with UAX (bear in mind that on the BOI end UA is very strong, whilst AA is virtually unknown). Even the notable addition of LAX-PVG will pit them against MU, long established on the route and a future SkyTeam member, and UA, which starts the route next month.

You are?!? If anything that little route is about to be *VERY* well served by three different carriers. AA would be wise to avoid that dogfight.

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):AA announced they were opening up a hub at LAX.

They didn't formally announce that, though. It was more like they added a few mainline and regional flights and decided to rather subtly start calling what was already a major station a full-fledged "hub". There was much a.net debate on the matter back in the fall, since there was no official announcement along those lines.

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):AA has decided to open a hub there. Not just a focus city.

Well, even before this point AA (mainline) was actually stronger at LAX than UA (mainline) was. UA has called LAX a hub for years now, whilst AA only started calling it that when they unveiled the new five cornerstone strategy. But bottom line, all along they were pretty close to having a LAX "hub" anyhow.

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):So as long as flights start making money expect some more routes and frequencies.

I really don't think AA intends to make much money flying, oh I don't know, LAX-PHX against WN, US, UA, and DL. I think they hope to make more money from excited FFers in markets like Tucson and Albuquerque, not to mention Los Angeles itself, while boosting loads and revenue on other routes that can tap the regional feed - Hawaii, MCO, BOS, SJD, etc.

Quoting flymia (Reply 2):Of course there is not a ton or room for AA at LAX so if they do continue to expand it should be interesting.

Well it sounds like they can expand the Eagle facility somewhat. T4 is quite full, but I believe I did hear that AA is going to get preferential gate use in the new TBIT. So perhaps they are planning to further develop the LAX hub as a transpacific gateway? Only time will tell...

Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):I don't know that it can, but to me, both of those MCI routes are well overdue.

I would agree with MCI-MIA, but I'm scratching my head about MCI-LAX. For an airline that is presently "financially challenged" to add what would be, at the very best, a marginal route seems to me to be perverse.

I think LAX-IAH has been screaming for competition. The route is dominated by UA/CO, and the only other competitor is WN to HOU. LA and Houston are the 2nd and 6th largest metros in the country. I think this route will support AA's CR7s, and I wouldn't be suprised to even see one or two flights upgauged to mainline.

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 13):I'm surprised that AA did not announce LAX-SAT with the CR7, along with these new routes. They flew this for some years with M80s

Should these new Eagle routes hold their own, I would think LAX-SAT/COS/TUL could well be next. All three markets had mainline (MD-80) service fairly recently (within the past 10 years). On the other hand, a resumption of small intrastate markets like BFL, PSP, SBP, etc. is very unlikely IMO.

Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!

Quoting mariner (Reply 16):For an airline that is presently "financially challenged" to add what would be, at the very best, a marginal route seems to me to be perverse

According to the federal government, from MCI-LAX, the route currently serves around 700 passengers per day, commands an average fare of $200 one-way, and Southwest currently dominates with 60% market share. It sounds like a weak pairing, but it is a premium route. Many other pairs only fetch around $120 each way, see only around 200-300 passengers, and no carrier has more than 30% share.

Quoting Rising (Reply 20):According to the federal government, from MCI-LAX, the route currently serves around 700 passengers per day, commands an average fare of $200 one-way, and Southwest currently dominates with 60% market share.

Presently (perhaps the basis of those numbers?) there are two airlines and 3 x daily non-stops. As of June there will be three airlines on the route with 6 x daily non-stops.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):Some markets like Sacramento and Tucson I would characterize as marginal - not hopeless, but not great, either. Tucson may work simply built on the back of AA's large corporate presence there and strength in the local business market.

TUS so far has the most current and advanced bookings of all the cities that got new LAXRJ service today. I pulled up the loads on the first TUS-LAX flight today and it was oversold. There were connections to TLV on LY, SCL on LA, NRT on JL, and PDX on AS, AA/AE conx to KOA,SBA,RNO,BOS,ORD and a few others.

Quoting TUSAA (Reply 22):TUS so far has the most current and advanced bookings of all the cities that got new LAXRJ service today. I pulled up the loads on the first TUS-LAX flight today and it was oversold. There were connections to TLV on LY, SCL on LA, NRT on JL, and PDX on AS, AA/AE conx to KOA,SBA,RNO,BOS,ORD and a few others.

That is great to hear. I would love to see all of these markets succeed and thrive long-term, and I hope that Tucson does - I think the strong local AA corporate presence there (which I know I don't have to tell you about) might just help.

Quoting seatback (Reply 10):I would say most of the new routes are heavily served, especially DEN, SLC, PHX, TUS, IAH, and SMF. Clearly AA is looking for people to connect, not necessarily O&D.

Why would AA drop mainline on LAX-DEN and downgauge it to a ERJ? This sounds like a very bad move considering all the competition in this market.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
Houston I could see going either way. I think AA is sufficiently strong at both ends to make flights work if timed well and properly supported, but I'm not sure if the CRJ is the right airplane. I could perhaps see that going from 3x CRJ to 2x MD80 (probably a ~9am and ~6pm IAH departure and ~1pm and ~7pm LAX departure) in the future.

A route like this for AA would be perfect for a E90/95 or a 73G. They would be able to offer a much more competitive and comfortable product vs using the CR7s which is an upgrade compared to the smaller ER4s. LAX-SAT would be another route were the E90/95 or 73Gs would work well. The pilots union needs to humble themselves and realize these 100 seat a/c fit a niche market and will keep them working.

Quoting TUSAA (Reply 22):TUS so far has the most current and advanced bookings of all the cities that got new LAXRJ service today. I pulled up the loads on the first TUS-LAX flight today and it was oversold. There were connections to TLV on LY, SCL on LA, NRT on JL, and PDX on AS, AA/AE conx to KOA,SBA,RNO,BOS,ORD and a few others.

I can see some of the new LAX-TUS-LAX flights being upgauged to mainline service eventually. This is going to be a very successful market for AA since they have a large FF following there. On the other hand, the new PHX service, I don't see doing well.

25 commavia
: Agreed 100% - these would be absolutely fantastic markets for a 90-seater. Alas, because of this ... ... I don't realistically see it happening anyti

26 Cubsrule
: I think you missed my point before. Today, it would not be a good choice. Two years ago, it would have made much more sense (though they probably wou

27 okie
: First of all you have to look at more than the OKC-LAX which I am sure AA did. Hub routing would be OKC-DFW-LAX, AA obviously feels they can pull eno

28 goblin211
: Not really surprising. If they announced a hub at lax recently then it should be expected. Besides, AA will still expand just like any other airline

29 MrSkyGuy
: I, for one, hope that AA's growth at LAX continues as much via new destinations as it does layering existing ones. It gives us locals more options, al

30 laca773
: I agree with your observations of the market. TUS struggles a lot as fares are much higher for direct service anywhere of significant distance while

31 NorthstarBoy
: Have they tried offering the pilots job guarantees? When you look at what UA did vis-a-vis the 737 retirements.......1400 mainline pilots out of work

32 Mir
: That would probably mean flying the E-Jets at mainline. Certainly doable, but there would have to be a newer, lower, payscale for them in order (one

33 Cubsrule
: It would be good for the company, the pilots and the industry. I'm not sure why APA won't have it.

34 delta2ual
: I think you're confused. The routes were started yesterday, but as DFWEagle points out, they were announced MANY months ago!

35 N737AA
: Right on the money, hardly an assault with a few RJ's. It is a "Cornerstone" so yes it is a hub. Flew this route until the previous draw down, might

36 KELPkid
: ELP-LAX was a mainstay of AA back in the day. They dropped the route like a hot potato when WN started flying it in the late 70's/early 80's...of cou

37 AAtakeMeAway
: Didn't MQ fly LAX to ELP (and ELP to DFW) a couple of years ago when they needed a "bridge" between the LAX and DFW hubs? If so, do we know why it was

38 jetBlueE90
: Ha. why don't you post the pay rates AMMR wants and what the pilots want. Or any of the AMR lover/APA haters...... Something tells me you guys a talk

39 commavia
: What AA effectively wants/needs on the 90-seaters is a B scale, which of course the APA will (stupidly) never agree to. Aggreeing to a contract that

40 Cubsrule
: Since you so clearly know, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals?

41 mah4546
: There is also two new dailies to DFW and one new daily each to MCO, MIA and ORD. MIA-LAX is at an impressive eight daily, and has more capacity than

42 DFWEagle
: DFW-LAX will be increased further for the peak summer season, reaching 20x daily flights. IINM, this will be the highest frequency route in AAs entire